How desperate are Massachusetts Republicans?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

One word: Tagg.

Okay, a few more: Tagg "I want to punch President Obama in the face for being mean to my daddy" Romney.

But it won't be Tagg, and it won't be Ann either, and of course Scott Brown wants nothing to do with another Senate run.

And so now what? What will Republicans do to try to win the seat left open by John Kerry's move to the State Department? 

[T]he state GOP's leader tells the [Boston] Herald that they don't even care if their candidate has name recognition. "If you think back, Scott Brown wasn't a name, he was a state senator who worked his way up," she said. "I think what GOP candidates have to offer voters in Massachusetts is a fresh face and a new direction, and I think that's the take-away from our candidates, whether they be a name or not." So if you're at all interested in the job, don't let lack of experience or a set of nearly nude photos from your college days hold you back.

A fresh face? A new direction? Yeah, sure, whatever. The only way the Dems lose this seat is if they pick a terrible candidate, self-destruct, and hand it to the GOP.

And they never -- cough-cough, Martha Coakley, cough-cough -- do that, right? 

All Hail Queen Ann!

By Richard K. Barry

Okay, you can get off your knees now.

There's nothing fun about losing an election, whether for dog catcher of Poduunk or president. On that, The Washington Post had a story today about how Mitt Romney is spending his time and what he's going through now that the American people have so clearly rejected him and whatever he stands for.

I don't care about Mitt or Ann. Their attitude towards the so-called 47 percent should be enough to make any decent American sick. I don't care what happens to them from here on out.

What did interest me in the Post story, as a reference for the future, was a comment about how Ann Romney is taking the loss:

By all accounts, the past month has been most difficult on Romney’s wife, Ann, who friends said believed up until the end that ascending to the White House was their destiny. They said she has been crying in private and trying to get back to riding her horses.

Wrong answer, Ann. The White House should never be anyone's destiny.

Read more »

As if we cared

By Mustang Bobby

From Saturday's Washington Post:

By all accounts, the past month has been most difficult on Romney's wife, Ann, who friends said believed up until the end that ascending to the White House was their destiny. They said she has been crying in private and trying to get back to riding her horses.

To quote the immortal Hawkeye Pierce: "The instrument has yet to be invented that can measure my indifference to that remark."

Mitt Romney, with sons Craig, center, and Josh, foreground, was spotted riding the Matterhorn at Disneyland. The former presidential candidate was also seen taking a ride on Big Thunder Mountain Railroad with his sons and grandchildren.

Nobody knows the trouble she's seen

By Mustang Bobby

I'm sure Ann Romney is a very nice person and that she only wants to support her husband and his campaign, but she's not really doing that when she complains about how mean people are to him. That is, after all, how these things work. Oh, and it doesn't help when you try to generate some sympathy by saying essentially, we're not poor and never have been, but we know what it's like:

Well, I think the thing that I want to communicate to people, and that it's so important that people understand, is that Mitt and I do recognize that we have not had a financial struggle in our lives. But I want people to believe in their hearts that we know what it is like to struggle. And our struggles have not been financial, but they've been with health and with difficulties in different things in life.

It's true; Ms. Romney has MS, and that's terrible. But she's also never had to worry about choosing between paying for the medical treatment she needs and eating, so even if her insurance company denies her coverage, she's going to get the care she needs. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't have that luxury, and her husband wants to make sure they don't have it. (Well, he's sorta on the fence about that. Wait a week.)

Ms. Romney also said that "we have not had a financial struggle in our lives." So I guess those heart-warming stories about her and Mitt eating pasta and tuna fish off an ironing board in their little apartment was either bullshit, or she's remembering what she saw in La Boheme. Yeah, I know everyone embellishes things in their convention speech, but at some point you have to at least stick within a light year or two of reality. It's okay to tell the world that the closest you've gotten to living in poverty was when the power went out at the ski lodge and you have to open the caviar tin with a butter knife. Republicans really connect with that. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

The smallness and pettiness of Ann Romney

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I realize this isn't a race for First Lady, that it's not Ann Romney challenging Michelle Obama, but the fact is, the first lady and the would-be first lady are prominent surrogates for their husbands, not least at the conventions, and are very much a part of the race. We may not like it, how spouses have more and more become political actors, and have more and more been treated as such, and how they're put in the difficult position of being both submissively supportive and willfully assertive as individuals, but it's just the way it is, and that means, alas, that they're fair game, that they're deserving of the sort of praise and criticism usually reserved for the candidates themselves and for their partisan surrogates.

And the fact is, compared to Michelle Obama, who last night gave a magnificent speech, the best I've ever seen or heard by a first lady or would-be first lady, Ann Romney, while seemingly quite pleasant, has appeared small and petty in contrast, and utterly phony when she's tried to connect.

Of course, it's a tough job trying to humanize Mitt Romney, and to persuade people that you and your husband aren't just an out-of-touch rich douchebag couple living a life of extreme privilege -- perhaps an impossible one. But hasn't just been Ann's attempted humanizing of Mitt. She'd waded into politics as well, and when she has, she's proven to be as out-of-touch, as arrogant, and as condescending as her husband.

Like when she referred to "you people" when defending Mitt's decision to release any more of his tax returns.

Like when she told Latino voters to get over their "biases" and spoke to them as if they're just a bunch of selfish small-business owners.

And like when, today, she told women to "wake up" and trust in Mitt:

"Women, you need to wake up," she told the largely female audience at a "Women For Mitt" rally in Findlay, Ohio. "Women have to ask themselves who is going to... be there for you. I can promise you, I know that Mitt will be there for you, he will stand up for you, he will hear your voices, he knows how to fix an economy, he's a can do kind of guy, he's a turnaround guy."

She can try, but this isn't going to work. Mitt is leading a party that is aggressively waging war on women -- I write this while listening to Sandra Fluke speak at the Democratic convention; how very fitting -- a party that has embraced an extemist anti-choice platform, that desires to disempower and humiliate women, that seeks to obliterate a women's right to be in control of her own body, indeed, to be in control of anything, a party that wants to silence women and suffocate their concerns altogether.

Romney and the Republicans won't be there for women. They won't stand up for them. They won't listen to them in any meaningful way. They've already proven, time and time again, that they won't.

No, I'm not saying that Mitt Romney hates women. I'm not saying he doesn't care at all. He's much more sensitive to women's issues, I think, than most in his party. But as he's moved further and ever further to the right, as he's embraced the right-wing mainstream of the Republican Party, and as he's run an ugly campaign based on a far-right agenda, selecting the anti-choice extremist Paul Ryan as his running mate and otherwise joining the Republican war on women, even if he usually prefers to remain silent and let others do the dirty work, refusing to condemn what his party is doing and what it stands for and therefore appearing to support and enable it, he has shown what he is really all about, or at least what he is willing to be about in his shameless quest for power.

Elizabeth Warren has just taken the stage in Charlotte. Now there's a strong, powerful woman.

Women don't need to "wake up." How fucking condescending. It's abundantly clear which candidate embraces them and stands up for them and which candidate pays lip service to women's issues while embracing an anti-woman agenda.

Ann may love her husband and think he's a great guy, and maybe even that he cares about women, politically and otherwise, but it's Barack Obama who is the one fighting for them against the forces that would keep them down.

(photo)

Ann Romney woos Latino voters with the typical Romney mix of ignorance, entitlement, and douchebaggery

By Michael J.W. Stickings

By most accounts, it would seem that Ann Romney's pre-Christie speech on Tuesday went quite well, though, really, did anyone expect otherwise? She's a polished business/political wife and she now has a lot of experience trying to humanize her husband.

It went well? Big deal.

Then again, she's one-half of a rich douchebag couple -- she drives a couple o' Cadillacs, is really into dressage (a rich white person's "sport"), comes across as remarkably stuck up despite her various and ongoing attempts at modesty and humility, and refers to those beneath her, which she and Mitt see as pretty much everyone, as "you people."

So there was certainly ample opportunity for her sense of entitlement and privilege to come across in her speech, or at some point during the convention. And... well, it did, just a day after her supposed triumph:

Ann Romney's convention speech was directly aimed at wooing female voters, but at a lunch event Wednesday she changed her focus and pitched her husband to Hispanic voters, a voting bloc that is especially important in this battleground state, urging them to get past the "biases... from the Democratic machine."

Right, their biases. Like, you know, being against xenophobia and immigrant-baiting. Like being for the DREAM Act, addressing the issue of undocumented immigration with compassion, and being open to the idea of America as a land of opportunity for all, not just for the privileged (white) few.

Seriously, is Ann Romney so fucking clueless about the extremist right-wing -- and indeed outright nativist -- positions Republicans have taken on the very existence of Latinos in America?

It's not all about "small business," which Romney mentioned in her speech, as if Latinos are all small business owners -- again, what utter lack of understanding, what utter ignorance.

And then to suggest that she "know[s] what it’s like to be the daughter of immigrants" because her grandfather was a Welsh coalminer? Seriously? Nothing at all against Welsh coalminers, who had it rough, but that's completely ridiculous. (One of my grandfathers landed on the beaches on D-Day with the U.S. Army, while the other was a British bomber pilot. I know what it's like to fight the Germans!)

You know, if Mitt Romney were his own wife, he'd be just like Ann. They're perfect for each other.

Shorter Rmoney: "We have nothing to hide, which is why we won't release our tax returns."

By Comrade Misfit

That, at least, is what the Spouse of Rmoney is saying.

Bullshit. That is damn near a Nixonian-type claim. Releasing lots of years worth of tax returns is a rite of passage for wannabee presidential candidates that goes all the way back to a guy named George W. Romney. If someone wants to keep that stuff private, then there is one thing they can do: not run for office.

So the allegations that, between 2004 and 2007, Romney invested in Soylent Kitty Ltd., a firm that planned to make protein crackers using the carcasses from high-kill animal shelters as a base source, will just have to stand.

(Cross-posted at Just an Earth-Bound Misfit, I.)

Just for laughs

By Carl 

Mitt Romney's pretty much acknowledging he's screwed the pooch.

The nation has met Barack Obama's Mitt Romney. If it's going to meet Romney's version of himself, it will happen this month, or not at all.

It was supposed to start last month, with picked-up ad spending and a foreign trip built around a choreographed Olympic moment. But the foreign trip fell flat amid distractions at every stop, and Democrats continued to break through with their assault on Romney's transparency and business record.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus fired back today on ABC News' "This Week," calling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "a dirty liar" for his unsubstantiated suggestion that Romney didn't pay taxes for a decade.

"This is just a made-up issue," Priebus said. "And the fact that we're going to spend any time talking about it is ridiculous." 

Romney completely misplayed the tax issue, in my opinion. You can hold off on releasing documents -- look at the President and the birth certificate issue -- but you have to have a better explanation than "none of you business." Literally, that's what Ann Romney said, and since Mitt was either dumb enough or smart enough not to publicly walk that comment back, I have to assume he agrees and supports his wife.

After all, win or lose, he has to live with Ann after the election.

I'm sure that what is in those returns is more personally embarassing than politically damaging, and if Romney was as smart as I am, he would have issued those returns in one huge dump, then turned the conversation to tax reform, saying something like, "Look, I'll gladly pay more taxes if the American people decide that there's a determined amount of inequality between the rich and the middle class, so let's have that conversation now." Saying stuff like "paid all I was legally obligated to" sounds reminiscent of Al Gore's "no controlling legal authority."

It's a good thing Mitt didn't wag his finger at the cameras, or suddenly we're in "I did not sleep with that woman" territory.

It's a little hard, too, to deny the American people transparency when you've claimed a) your opponent runs a corrupt and secretive administration, and b) you've demanded past opponents be more forthcoming about their taxes -- even asking one to release her husband's tax returns for full disclosure.

Romney's only real chance at any kind of reboot, and even here, it's warm beer, is his choice for Veep. He could choose a dynamic fighter (like a Rick Santorum) that might energize the base and give that person a leg up in 2016.

After all, no matter what, Romney's already lost this election. His best tactic at this point is to shore up the base, and make them stay mad at Obama and not the party. Sadly, choosing either of the frontrunners, Rob Portman or Tim Pawlenty, will have precisely the opposite effect on the Teabaggers and will throw the entire party into a tizzy.

In fact, I'm not convinced that John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin was not dictated in large part by the writing on the wall of a large Obama victory.

But to think that Romney can reboot into some sort of competitor for the president is silly. At best, he can burn bridges behind him and slow the juggernaut down. He cannot beat Obama.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

The people will want what they want

By Richard K. Barry 

I know some people think Ann Romney is not fair game in the back-and-forth of the presidential election campaign, but she can't have it both ways. She can't make partisan comments and then expect to be left alone.

I quite enjoyed her statement on Good Morning America regarding calls for hubby Mitt to release more tax returns. Her response was that "We've given all you people need to know and understand about our financial situation and how we live our lives." I would emphasize the term "you people." Does she mean "you little people," or "you people of relatively modest means who simply don't understand?"

Well, you see, Ann, here's the thing. You and Mitt don't get to decide how much is enough. The American people will tell you what they need to see to make a decision. Sure, you can decide how much is enough in a formal way, but if the voters don't agree, don't expect to move in to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

That's the sweet thing about politics in comparison to being an insanely rich private citizen. You have to be responsive to the interests of massive numbers of people all the time. You almost never get to tell them "we have given you people all you need to know," and if you do, you pay a price.

If you can't get used to that, you and Mitt are really not going to like the job you're auditioning for, should you be lucky enough to get it.

(Update: New York magazine said today they reviewed the tape of Ann Romney's comments and don't think she said "you people." I listened to it very carefully and I disagree. I even sat down with someone who hadn't heard the story beforehand and, without prompting, she heard "you people" very clearly.)

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

More VP gossip

By Richard K. Barry

Look at me. I'm waving my arm.
Oh, that's exciting!

Politico is reporting that Sen. Rob Portman is being vetted for Romney's VP slot while South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is not. That's not exactly news as everyone knows Portman is near the top of everyone's short-list and Haley has publicly stated she would decline the post if offered.

The upside to Portman is that Romney might actually appear to have a personality while standing next to him, which is also the downside.

As for Haley, or any woman for that matter, I don't see it, no matter what Ann says. Romney may need to appeal to more women to be competitive, but that doesn't mean he'll actually chose one as a running mate. If you think McCain looked uncomfortable next to Palin, can you imagine Romney next to a female VP candidate? I can't. It wouldn't at all appeal to his "stuck-in-the-50s" mentality. 

On the idea of female candidates in general, have you ever noticed that when a political party loses an election in which a woman is their candidate, the party elders often shy away from nominating a woman the next time? But when a man loses an election, they never say, "better not run another man. That didn't work out too well last time." No, they never say that.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Mitt Romney is a victim, sayeth "Saint Ann"

Oh Mitt. Life is so very hard. 

I do realize the Romney campaign will trot out "Saint Ann" at every opportunity to humanize the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. I guess you run with what you've got and, since Mitt is such a goof, no wonder they are looking for others to carry the water on the sympathetic personality front.

I'm just not certain the latest attempt by Ann to paint her husband as a victim of the big mean Obama machine will have much resonance with voters. In an interview with CBS News Ann said President Obama's entire campaign strategy is to "kill Romney."

Oh, please. I have never seen such an attempt by one political party to delegitimize, vilify, and disrespect a sitting president as happened the moment Barack Obama won the last election. Do childish names like the "Kenyan socialist" ring a bell? Do the ridiculous efforts to now "vet" Obama by the "children of Breitbart" come to mind? What about practically anything Fox "News" says on its airwaves? In general terms, the conservative movement in America has dedicated itself to the destruction, personally and politically, of the guy now in the White House.

But, no, according to Ann Romney Mitt is the victim. He's the target of Obama's Chicago thugs, who will attempt to tear down this wonderful man who only wants to make America great again. (I have to stop there. I'm making myself ill).

Okay. Give it a shot. If you think humanizing Romney requires painting him a victim, go for it.

Call me cynical, but I just don't see Romney as someone who has had a hard time in life and I doubt many others will feel sorry for him on any level.

My advice to Mitt, if he were asking, is: don't do it. It makes you look even more pathetic than you already do, if that's possible.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Where's the money, Mitt?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

When it comes to Romney's money, the issue isn't that he has a lot of it but how he got it and what he's done with it.

How he got it is clear enough. His dad was rich and famous and, leading a privileged life that included an expensive education, he got into vulture capitalism, making a fortune by destroying / outsourcing jobs, ruining lives, and otherwise doing anything and everything for a buck (or, really, millions and millions of them).

What he's done with it is trickier to determine. Certainly he's spent a lot of it on things like dressage and car elevators, and of course it costs a lot to be a rich douchebag with friends who are NFL and NASCAR owners, and with a wife with expensive (if questionable) tastes, a couple of Cadillacs, and her own penchant for Romneying.

But there's a lot, an awful lot, he hasn't spent on his privileged rich lifestyle. And a lot of it he keeps well away from public view, even as he asks for the public trust in his run for the highest office in the land, even well away from his own country, hidden away in secretive offshore accounts, in places like Switzerland, the Caymans, Bermuda.

Is this an issue? Should it be? Yes and yes.

It would be troubling enough were he just a private citizen, given that such accounts are often/usually used to avoid domestic taxation, allowing the rich to get richer. (The rich can get away with it. Everyone else, not so much. Just try to hide some of your income from the IRS.) But it's even more trouble in Romney's case given that he's running for president -- and so is a public future who wants to be the country's chief public servant.

And so I highly recommend the fantastic investigative report on Mitt's money by Nicholas Shaxson at Vanity Fair:

For all Mitt Romney's touting of his business record, when it comes to his own money the Republican nominee is remarkably shy about disclosing numbers and investments. Nicholas Shaxson delves into the murky world of offshore finance, revealing loopholes that allow the very wealthy to skirt tax laws, and investigating just how much of Romney's fortune (with $30 million in Bain Capital funds in the Cayman Islands alone?) looks pretty strange for a presidential candidate.

It's very long, but it deserves your attention.

You can make up your own mind as to whether or not, or to what degree, Romney should be held accountable for what he's done with his money, but you should at least know something of the truth.

And Romney won't be the one to fill you in. You can be sure of that.

(Image from The PBH Network.)

Ann Romney: proletarian

By Richard K. Barry

It's good to see Ann Romney overplaying her hand. Yes, she has more personality than hubby Mitt. Who doesn't? But this little crack that she and Mitt wouldn't take as many overseas vacations as Barack and Michelle Obama should Romney become president is too precious.

For one thing, Barack Obama hasn't taken any foreign vacations, so Ann seems to be as good with the facts as her husband.

For another, yes, Ann, try to suggest that you and Mitt are just folks and that the only down time you need is time spent with your family. Look, you're filthy rich. I don't really care. But if you insist on making cute remarks that imply otherwise, you're going to screw up. You're going to start talking about how you "don't take overseas vacations because you own so many wonderful vacation properties in America," and things like that.

Just like Mitt, who doesn't understand why talking about his friendships with NASCAR team owners doesn't make him a good ol' boy, you'll start tripping over your own tongue too. It's inevitable.

I can't wait.

Yukking it up, just like common folk (with brewskies in hand)

By Richard K. Barry

 

Woo-hoo, most assuredly!!! 

I honestly don't care that Ann Romney is a part of the horsey set. She and Mitt have a lot of money. Most people who aspire to high office in America have some cash in the bank. At the same time, I think it's absolutely fair game that the press write about how much their houses cost, what kind of cars they own, their hobbies, whatever. It just is.

People have a right to know if the candidate they may vote for can relate to their own lives. Having a lot of money doesn't make that impossible. FDR and JFK did a pretty good job convincing voters they cared. But if you continually act like you have no idea how the other 99% lives, as Romney does, expect some heat. Too bad.

Having said that, this picture of Ann Romney at a dressage event recently is intended as a gentle shot at Stephen Colbert who had some fun waving around a foam finger on his show recently to mock the elitism of those who root for prancing horses.

As The New York Times reports:

"Folks," Mr. Colbert said, "the image of Romney as a privileged princeling ends today, because now Mitt is just your average blue-collar fan of dressage."

To show it can take a joke, the United States Equestrian Federation distributed 500 foam No. 1 fingers here, a cheeky reference to a prop Mr. Colbert used in his skit as he clutched a beer bottle in his other hand and cheered, "Woo!"

Okay, good gag for Ann and her friends. Way to push back with a sense of humour. (Love the product placement on the Budweiser, by the way. Nice touch, because these people really look like they suck back the suds.)

The attention, though, as the Times notes, may not be a great thing for the Romneys:

But as Mr. Colbert's satire suggested, the scrutiny may not be entirely a blessing for Mr. Romney's image as a man in touch with the concerns of average Americans. As millions tune in to the Olympics in prime time this summer, just before Mr. Romney will be reintroducing himself to the nation at the Republican convention, viewers are likely to see "up close and personal" segments on NBC about the Romneys and dressage, a sport of six-figure horses and $1,000 saddles.

But, honestly, the issue is not wealth. It's the way Romney comes across that has created the impression he's from another planet. The wealth is just a way to make the point and laugh at him, which I'm all for.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

What's the deal with Ann Romney's $1K shirt?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There's a bit of a double standard at work in the coverage of Ann Romney's $1,000 bird shirt. It's a rather expensive piece of clothing, yes, but how much do you think the men's suits, including her husband's, cost? A lot, I suspect. At least, they look expensive.

And is that wrong? Really, would you expect a high 1%-er like Mitt to wear a cheap off-the-rack suit? Same for the president. Obama needs and wants to look good. Looking good can be expensive.

As for Ann's shirt, I'd say there are two problems, though:

1) As our friend Libby puts it:

I have no problem with Mrs. Romney paying almost a cool grand for only one shirt. Fashion designers need to make a living too, but paying that much for this shirt is a crime...

I figure she went with the eagle motif to relate to the patriotic proletariat likely to be watching, but it didn't work on any level. This is a shirt that might look good on a skinny, 20 something hipster. Definitely not meant for a 60 something aspiring FLOTUS.  

Actually, I'm not sure it would good on anyone. It's horrendous. Ann may know how to spend money with reckless abandon, but it would appear she has questionable taste to say the least. (She apparently doesn't have a stylist, so this was her decision.)

2) Maybe she didn't think it would ever be an issue, but even if there is a double standard she has to know that wearing such a stupidly expensive shirt that is so laughably ugly it was bound to attract attention isn't exactly the best way to help your out-of-touch privileged rich douchebag of a husband appeal to, you know, normal people. Or to appear in-touch yourself.

Then again, this is a Romney we're talking about. And when it comes to flaunting wealth, it's abundantly clear the Romneys have zero clue -- hence her husband's constant "Romneying" (as well as her own) -- about what appeals and what doesn't to those beneath them in the class system, which is to say, almost everyone.

All of which is to say, if you're going to wear stupidly expensive clothing, at least have some fucking taste.

Ann spent part of the interview trying to play Mitt up as some sort of wild and crazy guy, trying to make him seem, you know, human. That was awkward, pathetic, and embarrassing enough.

The shirt just made it all worse.

Mitt Romney and the great unwashed masses

By Richard K. Barry 

I have begged people to stop talking about Mitt Romney's sense of humor, but they just won't stop. Now his wife, Ann, wants to tell us that "there is a wild and crazy man inside there." Please stop. For god's sake, stop. Now I have to imagine Mitt doing a Dan Ackroyd - Steve Martin SNL routine circa 1978 around the Romney compound. Thanks for that.

As we know, the GOP wants voters to think Mitt is a regular guy with a regular good old fashioned sense of humour. They think this will help him connect with people and they with him.

But in the same story at The Hill, where Ann's comments are mentioned, Mitt talks about how he likes to sit down with individual families, without the cameras, to talk about what they are going through. He says at moments like this he feels connected with the issues and concerns of everyday Americans.

But, then, because he can't help himself, he says this: "I'm in this race because I'm very concerned about, if you will, the great bulk of America, the middle of America."

Come on. How close do you think he was, right there at that moment, to saying how much he cared about "the little people"?

"The great bulk of America?" "If you will?" Really?

I'm laughing, Mitt, but not with you.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Being a proud liberal

By Richard K. Barry


I'm always surprised when I see Phyllis Schlafly's name pop up in a story. I associate her more with Goldwater-era Republicans or anti-Equal Rights Amendment conservatives of a time gone by. But she's still out there, still saying the kinds of things people like her have always said.

I guess we shouldn't be surprised that she would make an appearance in light of the non-controversary generated by Hilary Rosen's comments about Ann Romney's lack of experience with the financial pressures that many Americans feel raising a family.

Conservatives like Schlafly took this as an attack on women who choose to stay at home instead of what it was, a frank recognition that many women don't have a choice between working outside the home and being at home to raise their kids. They have to find a way to do both.

While it's universally recognized that Rosen could have found a different way to make her point, the main issue is still worth debating, which is the extent to which the Romney's can understand the kind of financial pressures most Americans feel.

Anyway, it wasn't my intention to go on about this. It's been widely covered. I only wanted to mention that, with this opening provided to Shlafly, she decided to get on her high horse to say that conservatives now have an opportunity to banish the word "feminist" just as, she claims, they were able to discredit the word "liberal" in modern political discourse.

It's a strange argument given that some conservative women are actually in the process of claiming for their own the word feminist instead of rejecting it, so I don't think the word is going anywhere.

As for the word "liberal," it is true that it has taken a beating going back at least as far as the 1988 Dukakis campaign. That fact is an irritant to those of us who proudly call ourselves liberal or even something further to the left on the political spectrum.

On this, I noticed that the terrific blog Simply Left Behind has a section on the banner of the site quoting the character Matt Santos from the West Wing, as he describes what the word liberal means to him. The quote is taken from a fictional presidential debate in which the Republican candidate is attempting to smear Santos, the Democrat, simply by calling him a liberal.

This is Santos' response:

Jimmy Smits as Matt Santos

Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.

It's a great quote. I remember watching the original when it aired. I wanted to stand up and cheer. It was amazing to me that a fictionalized account of the White House did a better job explaining the mission of the Democratic Party than the real people doing the job.

I'm not holding my breath that the word liberal will make a big comeback, but I wouldn't mind seeing it happen. Yet another rule in politics is that when you let the other guys define you, you're losing.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Keep it zipped, Mitt

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Ann Romney says there's a "real" Mitt lurking somewhere behind the shameless pandering facade of a human being we've seen so far on the campaign trail:

Ann Romney defended her husband's sense of humor today during a radio interview, explaining that if people think the candidate seems too stiff at times as the host suggested, she thinks "we better unzip him and let the real Mitt Romney out."

The thing is, if you unzip Mitt, isn't what you'll find... stiff?

Sorry, but that's the double entendre here. And if you're going to use the word "upzip," Ann, you'd better be prepared for the obvious.

Seriously, maybe there is some semblance of a real human being, a real Mitt, down in there somewhere, but does anyone really believe that the upzipped Mitt on the campaign trail would be all that different than the zipped version? Even the unzipped one would be completely phony and manufactured, just as much an act of shameless pandering. Remember Mitt in Alabama saying "y'all" and talking about eatin' cheesy grits? Remember how utterly ridiculous that was? Well, the unzipped Mitt would be just like that, Mitt trying desperately, pathetically, to come across as authentic and genuine -- and failing miserably.

Because, really, the real Mitt is probably the privileged rich douchebag who's been out there sucking up for votes, an out-of-touch plutocrat who just keeps embarrassing himself on the campaign trail. Sure, he may have something of a sense of humor, and maybe that's what Ann sees, but there's no way Mitt will suddenly expose himself, such as there is a self with a soul in there, for all to see. He's too far gone for that.

I am Ann Romney

(Ed. note: We received such positive responses to our posts by the fourth Mrs. Limbaugh, Kathryn Rogers, which you can find here and here, that we thought we'd invite another woman married to a leading Republican to write for us. So here you go. Ann Romney -- in her own words. Take it away, Ann!)

Hi! It's me, Ann Romney! How are you all doing out there in bloggerland? I don't go on the computer much, I have to admit. Tagg showed me how to "log on," as he called it. I am so square. My family makes fun of me. 

So I decided to try this blogging thing after I heard about Kathy Limbaugh doing it. Can you believe all the problems her and her husband Rush have been having? Poor Rush. The message was clear enough, but my husband Mitt and I agree that Rush should have used a different choice of words. I asked Mitt if he would talk to Rush about it and he said he would. I think he called him a few times, but Rush hasn't returned his calls yet. Turns out, Rush is not an easy person to reach.

Anyway, it's great to be here talking directly to the American people. I am very thankful for the opportunity.

It is so exciting to be here and to be riding this wave of excitement and support that you all have shown for my husband Mitt. I have to tell you, these past eight years haven't been easy for us. I feel like we have been running for President forever. I remember when we started. At the time our third home had not even been renovated yet. It's funny. Somehow I can remember dates and events by which house we were renovating at the time. But you should see the house now. It is really something.

And I am proud to tell you we do not employee a single illegal alien! Our entire staff, in every one of our homes, including the maids, gardeners, drivers, even the people who tend to our horses, come signed sealed and delivered, 100% Grade A legal! In fact, just the other day I was speaking to one of our staff. I can't recall her name, but she told me how proud she was to be in America legally. I kindly told her "you're welcome." Isn't that great? The American Dream is alive and well in our homes and we are so proud to be a part of it!

My family is so proud to be able to employ so many hard working people. It is a testament to who we are as a family and who my husband is as a man and as a candidate. I tell you, sometimes with all the people around us doing all their daily activities, I don't even feel rich. Sometimes I feel like I am down there in the trenches with all of them. Sometimes I even help out. For example, the other night I was helping our chef open a wine bottle and we got to chatting about his family. His wife works two jobs! Isn't that such a uniquely American story? I told him I also have two jobs. I look after my husband, which let me tell you, is a full time job in and of itself, and I am also a mom to my five wonderful children. It is the hardest job you'll ever love, I always say. It really humbles me. And it is that experience that I will bring to the White House as your First Lady.

To give you another example about how normal we really are, I remember when Mitt worked in the private sector. He would come home concerned and depressed about all the layoffs that occurred as a result of some merger or takeover his company had to do that week. But my husband was and is resilient. By the next day he was singing to himself again, once more the usual chipper fellow I fell in love with. This is who he will be as your President. He is not distracted by pessimism. But he does have feelings and that is what I am trying to convey.

Too often Mitt gets a bad rap for being uncaring or cold. It is so false. But he takes it all in stride. At the end of the day Mitt understands that to make things better you have to have "creative destruction," as he calls it, and then turn that into something better. That is his plan for America.

As my daddy used to say, you can't enjoy mashed potatoes unless you first boil raw potatoes until they are soft, mushy and easily squashed. I never understood what he meant until my husband decided to run for Governor all those years ago. Now I understand it completely. America is that raw potato.

President Obama seems satisfied with America being a raw potato. But as Mitt always says, America needs to be transformed, turned into yummy mashed potatoes, as we often joke around the dinner table. As President, Mitt will ensure that America is turned into those mashed potatoes. To get there will take an entire nation working together to make it happen. I liken it to Mitt being the restaurant owner with all of you being the line cooks working hard in the kitchen.

Together we can turn America into a heaping bowl of mashed potatoes! Together we can make America yummy again!

Thank you all for reading. See you on the trail and God Bless America!

**********

Guest post by tmcbpatriot (not Ann Romney, but close) 

tmcbpatriot's informative and always entertaining blog, Take My Country Back, emanates from somewhere out in the Midwest. He writes passionately and as often as possible about a confused, mindless right wing hopelessly lost in the abyss of endless lies and misdirection. 

Ed. note: This is the patriot's fifth guest post for us. His first was on how it's about the vagina, stupid, his second was on gay marriage and the end of the GOP, and his third and fourth were the posts by "Kathryn Rogers." -- MJWS

The Romneying of Ann Romney: Is she a privileged rich douchebag, too?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You'll recall that "Romneying," one of the key neologisms of the political season, is defined as "accidentally bragging about your place high up in the economic stratosphere."

Well, there's a variation of that, and it's denying that you're in the economic stratosphere even though you most certainly are, a sort of faux humility that we've seen frequently in the faux populism of Mitt Romney, like when he tried to pander to the struggling masses by saying that he doesn't have a job, without mention of his massive investment income and personal wealth.

Cue Mrs. Romney, who let loose this whopper today:

We can be poor in spirit, and I don't even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing, it can be here today and gone tomorrow.

Actually, a quarter of a billion dollars, which is the Romneys' estimated worth, likely won't be gone tomorrow. But I guess that's rather hard to see when you're driving a couple of Cadillacs, are married to a privileged rich douchebag, and, well, are clearly something of an out-of-touch douchebag yourself.